Only one triggered response: Be careful what you ask for!
We’ve been asking career liberal journalists to push back against the New York Times—more specifically, against the famous newspaper’s low-grade campaign coverage.
Yesterday, we got what we wished for. An array of liberals chided the Times—for its negative front-page coverage of Candidate Rubio!
We also criticized the Times for that front-page report. In various ways, we thought it was very poorly reported and reasoned, which is pretty much the norm with this newspaper’s campaign work.
We focused on some obvious points, skipped past several others.
That said, we’ve also been trying to call attention to the horrible front-page work being done by the Times and the Washington Post concerning You Know Who and her greedy husband, who has been conducting “shakedowns” of swimsuit models and flying into Kazakhstan on private jets he wasn’t actually on.
When it comes to campaign coverage, the New York Times is a terrible paper. Its campaign reporting is often dumbfoundingly bad.
Due to the paper’s famous “brand,” it’s hard for people to come to terms with how bad its reporting actually is. Again and again, campaign reporting by the Times is just dumbfoundingly bad.
This week, a bunch of liberals noted this fact, but only when the famous newspaper criticized Candidate Rubio. When the Post and the Times have published gong-show reports about Candidate Clinton, our liberal journalists have tended to stand around gazing off into air.
It may have started with Chris Hayes. On Tuesday, the front-page report about Candidate Rubio made its debut on-line. Hayes posted a semi-joking tweet saying this:
Starting to think Rubio has some plant in the NYT and these supposed “hit-jobs” on him are false flags made to make him look sympathetic.
Glenn Greenwald and Matt Yglesias responded with similar thoughts.
Last night, Hayes made it official. He devoted a segment on his cable program to the Times’ recent coverage of the Republican darling.
As he started the segment, Hayes mocked the Times’ apparent confusion about what a “luxury speedboat” is. After that, he mentioned the earlier clownish report in the Times about Rubio’s traffic tickets.
Hayes said he thought the Times’ new report about Candidate Rubio was “not just a nothing-burger [but] a weirdly kind of snobby judgmental nothing-burger in tone.”
Does Candidate Rubio have a problem with over-spending? We couldn’t much tell from the Times report. Hayes said he doesn’t much care:
HAYES (6/10/15): The story predictably kicked off a major backlash against The Times, in part because it came on the heels of another Times piece criticizing Rubio and his wife for having gotten a combined, between the two of them, 17 traffic citations over 18 years, which most people didn’t think sounded so bad.Delgado said the report was legit. Hayes called it a snobbily judgmental nothing-burger. To watch the whole segment, click here.
Rubio himself only had four citations.
Now, Rubio successfully fund-raised off the New York Times stories, casting himself as a relatable man of the people who struggled with student loans and asking supporters to, quote, “Help Marco fight back against the elitist liberal media.”
It was almost enough to make me wonder if the Florida senator has a plant at the paper of record churning out ostensible hit pieces really designed to make him look good.
Joining me now, conservative Miami Herald columnist A.J. Delgado who, unlike me, thinks Rubio’s finances are very much a legitimate story.
All right, I am in the—I was basically found myself in strange company in the wake of this piece, because I was basically in the “this is a nothing-burger,” and not just a nothing-burger, a weirdly kind of snobbily judgmental nothing-burger in tone. You think it is legit?
A few parts of the Times report certainly were legit. For the most part, the piece was so incompetently reported that it was very hard to know what to think about its claims and insinuations.
The sheer incompetence of the reporting is typical of the Times’ campaign work. It’s hard for people to grasp this fact. But the New York Times just isn’t a competent newspaper.
That said, the analysts savagely tore their hair as they watched the Hayes segment last night. The “luxury speedboat” report was a blip on the screen compared to the poisonous front-page reports the Times has dropped on Candidate Clinton.
Hayes has had nothing to say about those front-page reports.
Check that! In late April, the Times did a sprawling, 4400-word front-page report about a scary uranium deal which was supposed to involve Candidate Clinton in some sort of treason or something.
The reporting was several miles beyond “terrible.” Assuming even minimal competence, the piece almost seemed a bit dishonest.
Unfortunately, Hayes did have something to say about that. That night, he described the piece as a “bombshell report,” vouching for the Times’ reporting.
Hayes chided the Times for its Rubio piece, vouched for the hit piece on Clinton! This is almost a parody of the way the liberal world has proceeded over the past twenty years.
Regarding the Times, it’s hard to overstate the poverty of its reporting techniques. Just consider the “luxury speedboat” and before it, the “Ford F-150 sports utility vehicle” the Times placed Rubio’s wife in.
As it turned out, that “luxury speedboat” from Wednesday’s report wasn’t a luxury speedboat at all. It was a more plebian fishing boat.
Similarly, the Ford F-150 isn’t an SUV. It’s a pick-up truck. (The Times has corrected its initial reporting regarding the F-150.)
These could be the types of errors the Times routinely makes. On the other hand, they could be the types of “errors” the Times often seems to make. Case in point:
That “luxury speedboat” made us recall a certain “fancy hotel.” We refer to the “fancy hotel” the mainstream press kept insisting that Candidate Gore had grown up in.
That completely accidental standard mistake went like this:
All across the mainstream press, reporters knew that the old Fairfax Apartment Hotel hadn’t been a “fancy hotel.” They also knew that it wasn’t the Ritz-Carlton, a second claim which was commonly made during the war against Gore.
Why did they keep saying that Gore had grown up in a “fancy hotel,” even in the Ritz? We can’t answer that question. Presumably, though, the propaganda advantage of these “mistakes” would have been apparent to all.
Who knows? This could explain why the New York Times put Candidate Rubio into that “luxury speedboat” in yesterday’s front-page report.
(Do you feel certain they wouldn’t do that? Who’s being naïve now, Kay?)
During Campaign 2000, the liberal world sat silently by as Candidate Gore was constantly placed in the “fancy hotel.” By way of contrast, several liberals were eager to speak when Candidate Rubio was placed in that “luxury speedboat” this week.
We agree with their complaints about yesterday’s front-page Rubio piece. Concerning attacks on You Know Who, the liberal world has been rather silent.
The reign of the fancy hotel: After the Gores had left their small apartment at the old Fairfax Apartment Hotel, the building was sold and completely refurbished. Eventually, it was reopened as a Ritz Carlton.
From that point on, it actually was a “fancy hotel.” That said, the Gores were no longer there.
Reporters kept making their honest mistakes as they conducted their war against Gore. They kept talking about the “fancy hotel” where Mr. Know-It-All grew up. Some of them even said that Gore had grown up at the Ritz! According to the Maureen Dowd script, “Prince Albert grew up as the capital’s version of Eloise at the Plaza.”
We discussed this till we were blue in the face. Career liberal “journalists” chose silence. The guild had cast Bush as the plain-spoken fellow who had grown up among the proles.
The liberal world put up with that crap every step of the way. Plain-spoken Candidate Bush ended up in the White House.
Are we planning to do that again? In certain very familiar ways, the table is being set.